Support NeoGAF

[CharminUltra]

nobody has proven yet that there is not a god.

Why should non-believers have to prove a deity's existence? The burden of proof falls on whoever claims said deity exists.

Remember the Flying Spaghetti Monster? No one has yet been able to prove that it doesn't exist. This is why the argument you're presenting is wrong, you can defend any kind of nonsense with it.

 

[Arcblade]

Why should non-believers prove a deity's existence? The burden of proof falls on whoever claims said deity exists.

Remember the Flying Spaghetti Monsters? No one has yet been able to prove that it doesn't. This is why the argument you're presenting is wrong: you can defend any kind of nonsense with it.

Or, if you like, while some might assert that these arguments are equivalent in form, they differ, quite drastically in content.

i.e. the side that makes the claim to something's actually existing, in lieu of any proof whatsoever, has made the stronger claim, and is thus the one of whom proof ought be required, given an equal lack of proof on both sides.

Manifesting evidence of the inexistence of a non thing would be a neat trick indeed.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

I believe I understand every part. You're asserting that I don't understand something, so it's your job to write up your evidence of what I'm misunderstanding based on what I've written and then clarify it based on whatever knowledge you presume to have that I lack.

Then why do you keep insisting that I have not shown and explained specifically what you don't understand. For example this statement...

Anything that actually exists can at some point be proven/disproven with science.

Nobody who understands science would make a statement like this. You do not understand what science is. Science has inherent limitations these limitations do not denote what is real and what is not real. They denote the type of phenomena science can be applied to.

Again its the grossest form of ignorance and a general raping of the concept of science to make the assertions you have. You do not understand what you are talking about. To me you are just as ignorant as a young earth creationist. Neither of you understand what science is, what critical thought is and you are both equally emotional and ummmm "spirited." That they are religious and you an atheist really doesn't alter my opinion of both of your "types."

Also scientific theory does not deal in facts...it cannot. One of the defining characteristics of valid scientific theory is the ability to be refuted and contradicted. Something that is a fact cannot be. Those specific observations contained or the foundation of theory can be factual in nature.

Most theoretical science postulates things that can never ever no matter what be verified empirically. Due to the before-mentioned limitations of empirical verification. This does not make them untrue or fake.

since I'm all about discussing

Really all your discussing is talking in circles and ignoring the repeated times I have shown what you are saying to be incorrect. But as I said I understand your sense of identity is closely tied to your "beliefs" and this hampers your ability to rationally discuss the topic you are not alone.

I always find it amusing when people bemoan a behavior in others while expressing the very thing they abhor.

 

[nib95]

I feel like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You could either argue that

a) as a cultural relativist, Dawkins has no right to criticize such traditions as honor killings or female circumcision (and thus religion) and is a racist/Islamophobe(is that a word?) for demanding equality for women

b) Dawkins too quickly dismissed the women's issue as it pales in comparison to women in other cultures and places in the world.

you can't have both. He's either a racist or a misogynist, but not both.

Not sure what you're getting at in your post (I don't believe such things are black and White and do believe a person can be multiple negatives based off a single post).

I'd personally say he was a potential misogynist for essentially telling Rebecca to shut up about voicing her opinions and potential distress under the given scenario and a bigot for numerous posts and points (I don't personally believe he is a racist).

Also how exactly is he even remotely demanding equality for women in that post? Looks to me like he's just using the situation to take an unnecessary, tasteless and insensitive stab at Islam. Heck, if Rebecca as a user made that post on GAF and a user responded with Dawkins response, chances are he'd be banned, perhaps for some time. In a lighter hearted way, even at a basic level that tells you something.

 

[Mortrialus]

You consistently said she called the guy an outright misogynist and sexist, when asked to provide evidence you could not.

She did. She accused the guy of being a possible misogynist, which by definition, is accusing the man of being a sexist. When Steph MacGraw commented on the issue, Watson accuses MacGraw of "propagating misogynistic views."

When others like You essentially used made up 'fact's' to judtify your campaign against her or to promote your agenda.

I did not make up those quotes. You can see the quotes I just linked right here:

http://www.unifreethought.com/2011/06/fursdays-wif-stef-33.html

I mean for fuck's sake, Watson's comments are second from the top and you can't read them and accuse me of lying.

As I mentioned in your links, it is my belief that she was referring to Dawkins as the possible misogynist, not the elevator guy who she only described as creepy and sexualising her (which he may not have been doing, but most probably was).

The issue is context. She doesn't specifically bring up and start criticizing Dawkins until later in the blog.

So here we are today. I am a feminist, because skeptics and atheists made me one. Every time I mention, however delicately, a possible issue of misogyny or objectification in our community, the response I get shows me that the problem is much worse than I thought, and so I grow angrier. I knew that eventually I would reach a sort of feminist singularity where I would explode and in my place would rise some kind of Captain Planet-type superhero but for feminists. I believe that day has nearly arrived.

There is admittedly some room for interpretation as that quote is vague, but I think it is clear she isn't specifically talking about Dawkins as the issue of misogyny she brought up, but the response that confirms it. The only explanation I can think of given the context on how in the blog it immediately leads into the elevator issue, followed by her discussing the response from it both the community at large and from Dawkins.

Commenting in such a way over random popular figures and so forth who do not post on these forums or have no identity here beyond being figured of discussion, politics etc (think George Bush, he's been thrown quite a lot of forum abuse over the years) etc however is a completely different thing altogether.

So throwing personal attacks against Dawkins is perfectly appropriate conduct because he probably isn't reading this, but since you are it is a totally different issue. Sorry, I don't buy that. You're still throwing personal attacks.

 

[Dead Man]

The question I have for most atheist and religious people is this "How do any of you factually know you are correct that there is or isn't a god/creator/supreme being?" Now you can argue with science all you want, same as you can argue with bible prophecy all you want. There is no definite answer, you are not right and neither is the religious person. See maybe I am just ignorant, but nobody has proven yet that there is not a god, nor has anybody proven that there is. So how can you say that they are holding people back when you yourself have no knowledge or proof that there isn't a god?

Another argument just for atheist, just because I am interested in the answers is What happened before the big bang? What started it? How did it happen? What was the cause?. Also to argue from the quantum physics argument, it wouldn't be valid because you need sub-atomic particles to even have quantum physics.

I think you should familiarise yourself with the concept of Russell's teapot:

the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others

I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.

You cannot shift the burden of proof to those denying a claim.

 

[Samk]

Not sure what you're getting at in your post (I don't believe such things are black and White and do believe a person can be multiple negatives based off a single post).

I'd personally say he was a potential misogynist for essentially telling Rebecca to shut up about voicing her opinions and potential distress under the given scenario and a bigot for numerous posts and points (I don't personally believe he is a racist).

Also how exactly is he even remotely demanding equality for women in that post? Looks to me like he's just using the situation to take an unnecessary, tasteless and insensitive stab at Islam. Heck, if Rebecca as a user made that post on GAF and a user responded with Dawkins response, chances are he'd be banned, perhaps for some time. In a lighter hearted way, even at a basic level that tells you something.

Was it really a 'cheap' jab? Are you okay with female circumcision, honor killings, and the full body burqa? Is it wrong to be very bothered by those things?

 

[nib95]

Was it really a 'cheap' jab? Are you okay with female circumcision, honor killings, and the full body burqa? Is it wrong to be very bothered by those things?

I'm bothered by a lot of things in life. But if they have no relevance in the subject matter at hand, I simply won't bring them up. Dawkins inclusion of those things was either a jab, or to try and justify downplaying Rebecca's concerns by means of highlighting greater concerns in the world. Both of the above are imo wrong.

Anyway, I fear this thread might be veering OT (possibly?) so I'll leave it at that. People can make their own minds up on what kind of a person Dawkins is. The proof as they say, is in the pudding. Though naturally that pudding might not taste the same to everyone.

Personally, I'm not generally a big fan of people on the extremes of either side, be it atheism or religion. I really don't like this narrow minded superiority complex that brews as a result. Who am I to judge the merits and "adequacy" of a person in todays society based on their religious or non religious beliefs? Simply put, I cannot.

.

 

[kswiston]

See maybe I am just ignorant, but nobody has proven yet that there is not a god, nor has anybody proven that there is. So how can you say that they are holding people back when you yourself have no knowledge or proof that there isn't a god?

You are right that there is no way to be 100% sure that there isn't a god or gods. However, there is no way to be 100% sure of anything. As human beings we are constantly making judgement calls on what is likely or unlikely, and are constantly dismissing unlikely scenarios. For instance, my car may blow up if I start it tomorrow morning after eating breakfast, but I figure that is very unlikely and will do so anyhow. I view god(s) and religion the same way. There is no tangible proof of god or gods as described by any of the world's religions. Until there is something tangible to consider, I'll choose to believe the much simpler scenario where things are exactly as they appear and there is no metaphysical force in the universe. There may be one, but based on current evidence, I'd judge that scenario to be unlikely to the point that it isn't worth considering while choosing how I live my life. If god presents himself to me (or the world in general) tomorrow, than I will chance my stance to that of a theist and adjust who I live my life accordingly.

The second part of your question (from the perspective of a biologist): Religious beliefs mainly hold back science through a lack of funding. Especially in the United States and Canada which are (theoretically) theologically neutral. Government funding is a very important source of scientific innovation, and is particularly important in the training of future scientists. The Hawkings of the world have no problem securing private research grants now, but that probably wasn't the case when they were in graduate school.

Religious belief is on a decline in most post-industrial countries. I think this leads to religious leaders (who naturally want to keep their constituents) lashing out at things they perceive to erode religious beliefs or "morals". The two biggest targets seem to be the media (which competes for attention and mindshare) and science (which directly conflicts with some of what is written in religious texts). People like media, so that is usually a losing-battle. However, most people do not have the training or educational background to properly assess scientific evidence (It doesn't help that scientists are usually horrible at translating their findings into simple language). When your spiritual/community leader is telling you that scientific fact X is wrong, and you can't assess that fact yourself, it is easy to take his word for it. Especially since these priests/rabbis/pastors/clerics/etc ARE able to provide guidance in many other areas of life. The problem occurs when a religious person who was turned off of science previously gains clout in the political sphere. The people who ultimately in charge of a country's scientific research and education budget budget are typically not people with a background in science. Scientific research budgets seem like an easy thing to cut when you don't realize how much of a country's productivity is driven by scientific discovery.

Another argument just for atheist, just because I am interested in the answers is What happened before the big bang? What started it? How did it happen? What was the cause?. Also to argue from the quantum physics argument, it wouldn't be valid because you need sub-atomic particles to even have quantum physics.

What does it matter really? Science never will have all the answers to life's questions. In the future, we may be able to piece together more in regards to the origin of the universe, but that hardly matters in one's stance of atheism. Hell, you could be an atheist who rejects modern science. Science and atheism are not mutually inclusive.

 

[elrechazado]

I think you should familiarise yourself with the concept of Russell's teapot:




You cannot shift the burden of proof to those denying a claim.

That concept doesn't prove that there is no god. It only stands for the proposition that it is unlikely there is a god, or that there is no proof of a god. You may not care about this distinction, but it is in fact a distinction. "God does not exist" is not a provable statement. "There is no scientific proof of god's existence" is. See the difference?

 

[Mumei]

Don't tell me he has done something comparable to asking a woman for a chat in an elevator!? Now I remember you. You're the git who defended Watson calling the man who asked for a chat in the elevator "A possible case of misogyny" In the thread about the controversy.

She did. She accused the guy of being a possible misogynist, which by definition, is accusing the man of being a sexist. When Steph MacGraw commented on the issue, Watson accuses MacGraw of "propagating misogynistic views."

Sigh.

I do not understand you. No one has said that the mere action of asking a woman for a chat on an elevator is sexist in and of itself. So why are you claiming that?

There is admittedly some room for interpretation as that quote is vague, but I think it is clear she isn't specifically talking about Dawkins as the issue of misogyny she brought up, but the response that confirms it. The only explanation I can think of given the context on how in the blog it immediately leads into the elevator issue, followed by her discussing the response from it both the community at large and from Dawkins.

I do not think the quote is particularly vague; she is talking about the atheist and skeptical communities' misogynistic and sexist response to her relatively mild criticisms and how those responses show her repeatedly that the problem was worse than she once thought.

... I don't even know why you've brought that topic up in this one; you clearly weren't interested in arguing against anything but strawmen in the first place.

 

[Furret]

Then why do you keep insisting that I have not shown and explained specifically what you don't understand. For example this statement...



Nobody who understands science would make a statement like this. You do not understand what science is. Science has inherent limitations these limitations do not denote what is real and what is not real. They denote the type of phenomena science can be applied to.

Again its the grossest form of ignorance and a general raping of the concept of science to make the assertions you have. You do not understand what you are talking about. To me you are just as ignorant as a young earth creationist. Neither of you understand what science is, what critical thought is and you are both equally emotional and ummmm "spirited." That they are religious and you an atheist really doesn't alter my opinion of both of your "types."

Also scientific theory does not deal in facts...it cannot. One of the defining characteristics of valid scientific theory is the ability to be refuted and contradicted. Something that is a fact cannot be. Those specific observations contained or the foundation of theory can be factual in nature.

Most theoretical science postulates things that can never ever no matter what be verified empirically. Due to the before-mentioned limitations of empirical verification. This does not make them untrue or fake.



Really all your discussing is talking in circles and ignoring the repeated times I have shown what you are saying to be incorrect. But as I said I understand your sense of identity is closely tied to your "beliefs" and this hampers your ability to rationally discuss the topic you are not alone.

I always find it amusing when people bemoan a behavior in others while expressing the very thing they abhor.

Is this what you have to tell yourself in order to cling to your religious beliefs?

 

[Kai Dracon]

It seems much of this argument wouldn't matter so much, if society could screw its head around a simple concept:

It doesn't matter what science thinks of "god" and it doesn't matter if "god" is provable or disprovable. The real question people should be asking is:

"Is "god" provable enough to take the big jump of running material society based on what we conjecture this God Guy wants?"

Religious folk who aren't overly primitive, paganistic, and superstitious, actually tend to admit that "no, we can't really be sure of much with god. It's the ultimate mystery."

Just get questions of god out of the everyday business of running the mortal world, and one suspects everyone, on all sides, would be apt to be a lot happier.

I think this is where the "DEFEAT ALL GODS!" atheist crusader types rub a huge number of people in the middle the wrong way. In spite of segment of the religious demographic that is overly superstitious and paganistic, people in the middle do not typically go about thinking the secular world should be run like a theocracy. To them, the ranting atheist is an asshole who is sticking his head into a place he has no business shilling his agenda.

By the same token, the "turn the other cheek", don't-criticize-mine-and-I-won't-criticize-yours mentality of mainstream western Christianity leaves a lot of those otherwise moderate religious folk with their own blind spot. They do not understand (or want to understand) the people who are using their own belief systems to try and undo the progress of the last five hundred years.

I've talked to Americans like that. They just don't want to think about the American Taliban and the hayseed religious stupids, and the insane theocrats who live in sweaty delusions of burning gay people at the stake (probably to repress their own sexual insecurity). They think "I'm a good Christian, like Jesus, those bad thoughts make me feel uncomfortable!"

 

[Slavik81]

Is this what you have to tell yourself in order to cling to your religious beliefs?

It's a distinction people should note. Science is about finding theories that allow you to make accurate predictions of the future. Thus, it aims to find all useful knowledge.

All useful knowledge is clearly a subset of all knowledge. There's all kinds of useless things you can postulate that nobody will ever be able to confirm. And there's really no harm in acknowledging that.

 

[faceless007]

Was it really a 'cheap' jab? Are you okay with female circumcision, honor killings, and the full body burqa? Is it wrong to be very bothered by those things?

Oh look, yet more perpetuation of the stupid "If you don't condemn X in all venues you can't also condemn tangentially-related topic Y." Of course no one here is OK with those things. That doesn't mean it was in any way relevant for Dawkins to bring it up in that comment thread.

 

[faceless007]

There is admittedly some room for interpretation as that quote is vague, but I think it is clear she isn't specifically talking about Dawkins as the issue of misogyny she brought up, but the response that confirms it. The only explanation I can think of given the context on how in the blog it immediately leads into the elevator issue, followed by her discussing the response from it both the community at large and from Dawkins.

You keep harping on the phrase "a possible issue of misogyny or objectification in our community" and assuming that's equivalent to "That guy was a misogynist rapist." IT'S NOT.

 

[danwarb]

Nobody who understands science would make a statement like this. You do not understand what science is. Science has inherent limitations these limitations do not denote what is real and what is not real. They denote the type of phenomena science can be applied to.

So you know the limits of scientific inference because you know that we can never be sure about a subset of things that you know to definitely exist? Well done.


It's a good thing Science isn't just about direct measurements and we get to infer ever more accurate models of the universe through prediction and observation. Like dark matter observed through gravitational lensing. The alternative is fantasy with no grounding other than being a product of reality, along with apparently everything else.

 

[Furret]

It's a distinction people should note. Science is about finding theories that allow you to make accurate predictions of the future. Thus, it aims to find all useful knowledge.

All useful knowledge is clearly a subset of all knowledge. There's all kinds of useless things you can postulate that nobody will ever be able to confirm. And there's really no harm in acknowledging that.

That's nonsense, science makes no value judgement about its findings and whether they're useful or not.

 

[Samk]

Oh look, yet more perpetuation of the retarded "If you don't condemn X in all venues you can't also condemn tangentially-related topic Y." Of course no one here is OK with those things. That doesn't mean it was in any way relevant for Dawkins to bring it up in that comment thread.

Oh I certainly agree with you and wasn't defending Dawkins claims as such. No, I got into a slightly different debate about whether or not Dawkins was a racist or bigot. I was trying to show, in my opinion of course, the folly of cultural relativism. I didn't think condemning the treatment of women under many Muslim peoples makes him a racist.

Again this all being said, I don't think it was appropriate of Dawkins to post with the vitriol he did.

 

[Zaptruder]

lol @ headless roland and amirox.

They're like the same person (with somewhat different beliefs) arguing against themselves.

 

[Dead Man]

That concept doesn't prove that there is no god. It only stands for the proposition that it is unlikely there is a god, or that there is no proof of a god. You may not care about this distinction, but it is in fact a distinction. "God does not exist" is not a provable statement. "There is no scientific proof of god's existence" is. See the difference?

You seem to have missed the point of what I was trying to demonstrate. I was not trying to prove there is no god, only that the burden of proof rests on those claiming a particular divine being, and that atheists do not have a burden of proof to disprove each and every conception of divinity. Otherwise they would need to account for the damn teapot.

 

[Slavik81]

That's nonsense, science makes no value judgement about its findings and whether they're useful or not.

You've misunderstood me. I defined 'useful' as a theory that can be used to make accurate predictions about the future.
If it isn't 'useful' it isn't science. That's the basis of empiricism.

I say they're useful theories to distinguish them from theories that I'd call useless: those that would have no effect on observable reality, regardless of whether they were true or not.

 

[faceless007]

Oh I certainly agree with you and wasn't defending Dawkins claims as such. No, I got into a slightly different debate about whether or not Dawkins was a racist or bigot. I was trying to show, in my opinion of course, the folly of cultural relativism. I didn't think condemning the treatment of women under many Muslim peoples makes him a racist.

Again this all being said, I don't think it was appropriate of Dawkins to post with the vitriol he did.

Ah, I get it. Sorry, didn't mean to be so hostile.

 

[jaxword]

anti-Islamic

There we go. Finally a critic of Dawkins admits the truth.

This isn't about his scientific message at all, it's that he is an easy target. He's against your religious beliefs, so he's a Bad Man. The same way people can use, say, the Pope as a representative of all Catholics, so do people strawman Dawkins into representing all non-religious people.

Several other people were doing the same thing in the thread but ran off cowardly when called out on it.

 

[faceless007]

There we go. Finally a critic of Dawkins admits the truth.

This isn't about his scientific message at all, it's that he is an easy target. He's against your religious beliefs, so he's a Bad Man. The same way people can use, say, the Pope as a representative of all Catholics, so do people strawman Dawkins into representing all non-religious people.

Uh, I'm not anti-Dawkins but it's pretty stupid to take those two words totally out of context of the argument nib is making and assume he must therefore himself be a Muslim.

 

[Furret]

You've misunderstood me. I defined 'useful' as a theory that can be used to make accurate predictions about the future.
If it isn't 'useful' it isn't science. That's the basis of empiricism.

I say they're useful theories to distinguish them from theories that I'd call useless: those that would have no effect on observable reality, regardless of whether they were true or not.

Science is the study of the natural world, full stop.

Going through these linguistic gymnastics to create a god of the gaps is absurd.

 

[jaxword]

Uh, I'm not anti-Dawkins but it's pretty stupid to take those two words totally out of context of the argument nib is making and assume he must therefore himself be a Muslim.

It's going to be interesting to see how you backpedal when you find out I didn't assume anything about nib95.

 

[faceless007]

It's going to be interesting to see how you backpedal when you find out I didn't assume anything about nib95.

He's against your religious beliefs

He=Dawkins
your=nib

No?

 

[jaxword]

He=Dawkins
your=nib

No?

nib95 is a Muslim and very vocal about issues relating to Islam.

You are completely wrong with your accusations against me above.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Is this what you have to tell yourself in order to cling to your religious beliefs?

I abhor everything organized powerful religious organizations represent. I have not ever at any point in my life believed in a god of any stripe or color. I assume you are an atheist? So shouldn't your embracing of critical thought and rationality noticed that I have not made the remotest claim concerning whether god(s) exist or does not?

So you know the limits of scientific inference because you know that we can never be sure about a subset of things that you know to definitely exist? Well done.

No, I know the limits of science because I understand the methodology and criteria of science. For example observation,measurement, causality (linear movement in time,deterministic interactions). These are restraints that cannot be circumvented no matter how advanced technology gets. The same reason any other metaphysical "thing" cannot be evaluated by science.

Thought experiment time. Imagine a God exists, all the young earth, no evolution bible shit is not true. But a personal giant bearded man in the sky exists. He makes his presence known as a God would. Miracles, shows up sometimes,punishes.

By what process could science verify or refute an omnipotent and omniscient being?

It's a good thing Science isn't just about direct measurements and we get to infer ever more accurate models of the universe through prediction and observation.

Science is in fact about direct empirical measurement...thats what science is. You can infer and deduce theoretical models not based on direct observation, but that is theoretical science an ENTIRELY different flavor and process and criteria of validity.

Like dark matter observed through gravitational lensing. The alternative is fantasy with no grounding other than being a product of reality, along with apparently everything else.

GREAT example... Dark matter is not a "thing". Dark matter is an off the cuff placeholder explaining why the universe does not function according to the existent model, thats it. Its not a thing its an "effect" that we no clue about. It was never predicted, we cannot explain it, we do not know what it is or what its properties are (ya know since its not a thing).

Same goes for Dark Energy (this one is even worse since its there is no way to detect it). In addition I recommend you google "Hume, problem of induction" for some added insight. Yes science is a very valuable tool for understanding. You should really understand what science is before you start "believing" in it. Science doesn't require belief, so stop doing it. Believing that science can eventually refute/verify all possible things is a belief of the most "supernatural" kind.

I also see a lot of blaming on religion for supernatural and superstitious beliefs of man. This is nonsense. While more and more people (well in the US at least) don't identify with religion any longer. Belief in pseudoscience (since fuckers who don't understand science cant evaluate scientific claims),supernatural (ghosts,tarot cards) and conspiracy nonsense has never been more popular.

So I think you should stop pretending that religion is the root of believing stupid shit. You believe science can address all "real" things. This is a pseudo-scientific, inane BELIEF.

 

[Furret]

I abhor everything organized powerful religious organizations represent. I have not ever at any point in my life believed in a god of any stripe or color. I assume you are an atheist? So shouldn't your embracing of critical thought and rationality noticed that I have not made the remotest claim concerning whether god(s) exist or does not.

What I have noticed is that you come across as an arrogant and condescending git, throwing words and concepts around you clearly have no understanding of. You're adding nothing to this conversation (but probably quite a bit to people's ignore lists).

 

[Zaptruder]

By what process could science verify or refute an omnipotent and omniscient being?

The statement prior to this one is something of a red herring.

The only point that matters with regards to this statement is that - conceptions of omnipotent and omniscient beings make claims that can be tested and contradicted by science - the study of the natural world and its phenomena.

As a result, it is more than possible to refute various conceptions of gods (such as the conceptions that are innately tied to claims about the formation of the universe/earth/mankind, etc)... which would just happen to be pretty much all of the ones we'd want to care about anyway.

 

[faceless007]

nib95 is a Muslim and very vocal about issues relating to Islam.

You are completely wrong with your accusations against me above.

Well, if true, my bad, he didn't say that in this thread.

Don't know what accusations, plural, you're referring to though.

 

[Mario]

Thought experiment time. Imagine a God exists, all the young earth, no evolution bible shit is not true. But a personal giant bearded man in the sky exists. He makes his presence known as a God would. Miracles, shows up sometimes,punishes.

By what process could science verify or refute an omnipotent and omniscient being?

In order to accomplish these things in a meaningful way, a god would still be needing to be interacting with and altering the natural world which means that science could indeed be called upon.

 

[Slavik81]

Science is the study of the natural world, full stop.

Going through these linguistic gymnastics to create a god of the gaps is absurd.

I don't believe in god. Nor is it linguistic gymnastics. It's the philosophy of science.

 

[Timedog]

Thought experiment time. Imagine a God exists, all the young earth, no evolution bible shit is not true. But a personal giant bearded man in the sky exists. He makes his presence known as a God would. Miracles, shows up sometimes,punishes.

By what process could science verify or refute an omnipotent and omniscient being?

Regardless of any sort of actual answer to this question. If he makes his presence known, that would be rad if he could give us some of his sweet god power to harness in some way. Maybe to power vehicles(what if vehicles with cargo danced around the earth like internet packets!!!), or to make computers eleventy thousand times faster.

I guess anti-matter/matter annihilation is kind of like the type of power god could provide, but it's just too difficult to harness antiparticles right now my awesome dude :/

 

[TheKaeptain]

Agreed on all fronts. Richard Dawkins is honestly just an pompous twat who's words are often drowned out behind his arrogance and rudeness. He can be a pretty disgusting piece of work at times, and ironically, he's probably pushing the religious agenda just as much if not more than the scientific one because of his tact.

I've never seen him act this way in any video. Can you post a video of him being a Dick during a debate?

 

[CharminUltra]

What I have noticed is that you come across as an arrogant and condescending git, throwing words and concepts around you clearly have no understanding of. You're adding nothing to this conversation (but probably quite a bit to people's ignore lists).

I love how HeadlessRoland...

1) Answers his own question:

He makes his presence known as a God would. Miracles, shows up sometimes,punishes.

2) ...before posing said question while proving himself wrong at the same time.

By what process could science verify or refute an omnipotent and omniscient being?

Condescension helps him cope with his ignorance I guess?

 

[danwarb]

Science is in fact about direct empirical measurement...thats what science is. You can infer and deduce theoretical models not based on direct observation, but that is theoretical science an ENTIRELY different flavor and process and criteria of validity.

...

GREAT example... Dark matter is not a "thing". Dark matter is an off the cuff placeholder explaining why the universe does not function according to the existent model, thats it. Its not a thing its an "effect" that we no clue about. It was never predicted, we cannot explain it, we do not know what it is or what its properties are (ya know since its not a thing).

You can't take away the theory/explanation from science, and theoretical science will make predictions that can be tested.

Dark matter was observed indirectly through the structure and motion of galaxies and gravitational lensing. There's no alternate theory of gravity that can explain observations like this. Then there's possibly the faintest interactions in dark matter detectors.

 

[cloud_sleep]

I've never seen him act this way in any video. Can you post a video of him being a Dick during a debate?

I'd like to see an example of this too. I think the problem Dawkins has is that publicly questioning religious belief has been taboo for so long that even when you do it relatively politely people still overact to it. Compared to most political commentators, Dawkins is generally pretty mild mannered, but I suppose anyone who tells people to rethink their whole world view and to abandon their plans to sidestep oblivion and see their dead loved ones again must simply expect a somewhat frosty reception.

 

[airmangataosenai]

When the fuck did GAF get an influx of creationist conservatives?

 

[Timedog]

When the fuck did GAF get an influx of creationist conservatives?

I'm not sure, but I've noticed it. Some of them, if they were younger may change their views on certain things. GAF conversations back when i first joined 10 years ago literally changed me into an atheist. I had been scared my entire life of the potential consequences of not believing in God. I pretty much got owned in a lot of religious conversations(even though externally, it may have felt to other people like it was back and forth, I felt like I was losing because tiny shreds of my belief were being torn away), and once I realized a few things, in big part because of GAF.

I felt like I could make very creative points to cover up any flaws in my arguments, but at some points I realized that their side was much stronger. If the Christian god was improbable, pretty much infinitely so, than there was nothing to be afraid of. GAF changed my life and that's probably a big reason I still post here and really enjoy these types of threads, even if they make me mad at times.

I say bring on the Christian conservatives. Debate is healthy. Diversity breeds better debate, which we've had more of lately, in my honest opinion.

 

[Zaptruder]

I'm not sure, but I've noticed it. Some of them, if they were younger may change their views on certain things. GAF conversations back when i first joined 10 years ago literally changed me into an atheist. I had been scared my entire life of the potential consequences of not believing in God. I pretty much got owned in a lot of religious conversations(even though externally, it may have felt to other people like it was back and forth, I felt like I was losing because tiny shreds of my belief were being torn away), and once I realized a few things, in big part because of GAF.

I felt like I could make very creative points to cover up any flaws in my arguments, but at some points I realized that their side was much stronger. If the Christian god was improbable, pretty much infinitely so, than there was nothing to be afraid of. GAF changed my life and that's probably a big reason I still post here and really enjoy these types of threads, even if they make me mad at times.

I say bring on the Christian conservatives. Debate is healthy. Diversity breeds better debate, which we've had more of lately, in my honest opinion.

GAF:- Death by a thousand paper cuts... deconversion through a thousand arguments.

 

[Timedog]

GAF:- Death by a thousand paper cuts... deconversion through a thousand arguments.

Once I hit the register button I was already dead.

 

[Gr1mLock]

I'd like to see an example of this too. I think the problem Dawkins has is that publicly questioning religious belief has been taboo for so long that even when you do it relatively politely people still overact to it. Compared to most political commentators, Dawkins is generally pretty mild mannered, but I suppose anyone who tells people to rethink their whole world view and to abandon their plans to sidestep oblivion and see their dead loved ones again must simply expect a somewhat frosty reception.

We should all take a moment to appreciate just how many times someone has been a dick to Dawkins during debates and he still responded in a patient and a civil manner. 'But but he hurt my feelings'. If you're gearing up for an intellectual or a philosophical debate fuck your feelings. I don't know shit about plumbing so I'm not gonna tell a plumber 'i feel' that your approach is too cold, calculated and mechanical. That it requires the touch of divine inspiration, however when it comes to biology this is apparently perfectly acceptable.

 

[cloud_sleep]

I'm not sure, but I've noticed it. Some of them, if they were younger may change their views on certain things. GAF conversations back when i first joined 10 years ago literally changed me into an atheist. I had been scared my entire life of the potential consequences of not believing in God. I pretty much got owned in a lot of religious conversations(even though externally, it may have felt to other people like it was back and forth, I felt like I was losing because tiny shreds of my belief were being torn away), and once I realized a few things, in big part because of GAF.

I felt like I could make very creative points to cover up any flaws in my arguments, but at some points I realized that their side was much stronger. If the Christian god was improbable, pretty much infinitely so, than there was nothing to be afraid of. GAF changed my life and that's probably a big reason I still post here and really enjoy these types of threads, even if they make me mad at times.

I say bring on the Christian conservatives. Debate is healthy. Diversity breeds better debate, which we've had more of lately, in my honest opinion.

This is why the argument that Dawkins and his ilk are wasting their time and that they won't change anything is wrong. I personally know several people who have abandoned religious belief systems after prolonged exposure to rational arguments and material. It is a slow and often painful process but people are capable of adopting new world views and new ways of thinking. Dawkins speaking out about religion and evolution does have the result of stimulating debate on places such as GAF.

 

[EliCash]

In response to what keeps on coming up in this thread, how can you prove the non-existence of something? Replace God with anything else and the you will admit that the burden of proof lies on the believer. Many people have said this already but people are still claiming "you haven't proven that God does not exist".

The point is we shouldn't really have to say "God almost certainly does not exist". Replace God with any other supernatural phenomenon and people will agree. Why does God have an unassailable privileged position? Because of the age of the belief? Because millions of people believe it? "Shame on the "aggressive atheists" for calling people who fly their fundamental beliefs in the face of science stupid, how dare they - they can't explain how we got here, such ignorance".

The statement "God does not exist" is not a provable statement in the same sense that the celestial teapot's non-existence can't be proven. The thing is about Russell's teapot though, is that it is doesn't even have any of the attributes of God - it isn't omniscient, it isn't omnipotent, it didn't create the universe - in fact, the only attribute it shares with God is its non-existence. Arguably, Russell's teapot is a more probable proposition than God.

Break down any religion (for arguments sake take Christianity) to its core beliefs (note: not just the belief in a God because we don't entirely know how the Universe began, there's a lot more to it than that) and it is akin to the ramblings of a mad man. Before I get called ignorant or arrogant for such a statement, list the beliefs and look at them with your rational mind.

Where we are at now with religion is arguably worse than what our Neolithic ancestors believed, given the knowledge available to them. Monotheism especially in the face of what we know now makes little or no sense to me, at least the ancient Greeks realized that if there were divine beings there would have to be many and they would have to be unkind, malicious, very capricious and above all not all loving.

 

[Gorgon]

You can't take away the theory/explanation from science, and theoretical science will make predictions that can be tested.

Dark matter was observed indirectly through the structure and motion of galaxies and gravitational lensing. There's no alternate theory of gravity that can explain observations like this. Then there's possibly the faintest interactions in dark matter detectors.

Dark matter wasn't "oberved". What we observe is an effect for which we don't know the cause. We're measuring an effect. Since we don't know what is causing it, we postulate that there is unobervable matter causing it, hence "dark matter". There is no proof it actually exists.

As for Dark Matter detectors, none of those experiences has come up with any conclusive data. We are still were we were before regarding dark matter.

Notice that there are alternate theories that account for the effects of dark matter. One has to do with the gravitational effect of brown dwarfs in quantities enough to provoke the observable effects:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1011/1011.2530v1.pdf

 

[Narcosis]

The point is we shouldn't really have to say "God almost certainly does not exist". Replace God with any other supernatural phenomenon and people will agree. Why does God have an unassailable privileged position? Because of the age of the belief? Because millions of people believe it? "Shame on the "aggressive atheists" for calling people who fly their fundamental beliefs in the face of science stupid, how dare they - they can't explain how we got here, such ignorance".

I guess the thing with other supernatural beliefs is that nobody (or maybe there are a few, I better mention it before someone calls me out....) is trying to create or cling to "Santa of the gaps" or jump through definition and linguistic gymnastics to create a nifty hole in logic where orcs and elves could possibly exist because we can't prove they don't.

As for the "militant atheism" thing, I really don't get how Dawkins is "militant". Christopher Hitchens is even more abrasive than Dawkins will ever be and even the Hitch is rather restrained and tame compared to some of the anti-Christian voices out there when I was getting into stuff like death/black metal, industrial and various other musical forms where blatantly trying to be offensive to religious people is the norm. The God Delusion isn't even particularly harsh, I guess the "militant" is because he's well known and appears on TV talk shows.

 

[Mortrialus]

I guess the thing with other supernatural beliefs is that nobody (or maybe there are a few, I better mention it before someone calls me out....) is trying to create or cling to "Santa of the gaps" or jump through definition and linguistic gymnastics to create a nifty hole in logic where orcs and elves could possibly exist because we can't prove they don't.

As for the "militant atheism" thing, I really don't get how Dawkins is "militant". Christopher Hitchens is even more abrasive than Dawkins will ever be and even the Hitch is rather restrained and tame compared to some of the anti-Christian voices out there when I was getting into stuff like death/black metal, industrial and various other musical forms where blatantly trying to be offensive to religious people is the norm. The God Delusion isn't even particularly harsh, I guess the "militant" is because he's well known and appears on TV talk shows.

I remember listening to the Nonprophets a while back when they were talking about the reaction to Dawkins' The God Delusion and cited an article written by a Christian titled "The Time for Polite Debate is Over." I think the crew's reaction summed it up perfectly; "What the fuck is writing a book?!"